Posted on 01/20/2012 10:57:39 AM PST by GregNH
That is exactly what I said. The Court found that women were citizens before the 14th.
edge919 would argue with a fence post that the fence post was not pine but wood. :)
Anyway thank you for the clarifications.
FOCUS and let’s see your head explode. The lower court deemed Ark a natural born citizen as confirmed by the United States brief as AFFIRMED by SCOTUS.
Did you bother to read those items yet.
Read them and then look at Fuller’s dissent - perhaps it will begin to make sense.
If a lower court deems Ark a Natural Born Citizen and SCOTUS affirms the decision without exception - what does that mean?
You quoted text. Did you read it????????????????????????????????????????????
The text you quoted was about citizens from different states. I am asking you how the text you quoted to me applies to Minor.
And his law school grades. And his marriage. Dozens of women will be popping out of thin air to talk about how he traded legal favors for sex. This guy better contact Herman Cain for some "how I would have done things differently" advice.
Contact the DNC, obama's campaign, and the MSM. I'm sure they have a file a foot thick, starting with the time he cried and woke his tired mother who had just given birth to him, through the day he knocked the spoonful of mashed peas out of his mother's hand, and up to the present. Obvious woman abuser.
Read page 2 of the brief by the United States in Wong Kim Ark. It states what the question is before SCOTUS. They are the one appealing. They are the one stating the issue before the court.
Also read Fuller’s dissent.
Btw, the lower court rejected the law of nations and gave an explanation as to why they rejected it.
Again, the lower court’s decision was affirmed without exception.
The Court excluded the other types of citizens from its definition because it was not necessary to resolve doubts about their inclusion in order to determine Virginia Minor's citizenship. The Court deliberately left unresolved the question of whether or not other citizens could be considered natural-born.
The excerpt is stating what the facts were for Minor. Even if the holding was that Minor was an NBC - WHICH WAS NOT THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT-therefore NOT THE HOLDING- it is not precedent because her parents were not aliens.
Good Lord, if you would actually bother to read everything to do with Ark you would start to understand that Chester Arthur’s situation might have been looming in the background.
They contorted positions to find Ark a citizen because if Ark was not a citizen -neither was Chester Arthur.
Also, there is a long discussion in the lower court case about DICTA. You should read it. You might start to get a clue about DICTA.
Now as for the lower court and the brief. Read Fuller’s dissent.
The appellant said the ruling was that Ark was a natural born citizen. DID YOU MISS THAT?
It also said this:
“Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patiots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth? “
Why bring this up in an APPELLENT BRIEF????
Read Fuller’s dissent with that understanding. He is saying the case is allowing Ark to run for President and he disagrees with the ruling.
No, Wong Kim Ark was not declared a natural born citizen. You’re all over the place with your attempted logic. It isn’t working.
That is not as far fetched an idea as one might think. What people seem to lose in this discussion is the fact that a political party is nothing but a group of people who believe in a ruling system for the people. They decide who it's leaders will be. It is up to the several states to determine who is eligible to appear on their states ballots. The DNC can put forth Micky Mouse, again, but if that state determines MM is not qualified for the office sought than MM will not be printed on the ballot by that state.
Now in this particular case this ballot is for a political parties primary choice and not for a general election. This is a states issue and IMO opinion if GA ultimately says no than no means no, end of story for that candidate in GA.
Fuller’s dissent is a piece of the puzzle for those of you that don’t know how to read this case.
Try this. ACTUALLY Read the appellent’s brief and tell me what issue was before the court??? The United States of America was appealing the lower court decision. WHAT WAS THEIR BASIS FOR APPEAL????? SCOTUS AFFIRMED Lower court case without exception.
And if case you can’t seem to figure out a key paragraph of Fuller’s dissent:
“And it is this rule, pure and simple, which it is asserted determined citizenship of the United States during the entire period prior to the passage of the act of April 9, 1866, and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and governed the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” used in the Constitution as originally framed and adopted. I submit that no such rule obtained during the period referred to, and that those words bore no such construction; that the act of April 9, 1866, expressed the contrary rule; that the Fourteenth Amendment prescribed the same rule as the act, and that, if that amendment bears the construction now put upon it, it imposed the English common law rule on this country for the first time, and made it “absolute and unbending” just as Great Britain was being relieved from its inconveniences.”
“No, Wong Kim Ark was not declared a natural born citizen.”
LOLOL.READ THE BRIEF OF THE UNITED STATES AND TELL ME THE ISSUE THEY PRESENTED TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Reading Briefs for Dummies:
Look for :
The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated...
What is the basis for appeal. Error.
What was the error????
THE RULING:
Which was what??????????????????????????????????????????
And I am asking you how he got on a boat or plane to travel to the US without a valid US passport or foreign passport and us visa. It would be difficult for an adult to board without documents and near impossible for an unacompanied minor. Which Catholic charities supposedly helped him and why from Connecticut? Where did he supposedly enter the US from Indonesia?
For those that still can’t comprehend that you could possibly be wrong about Wong Kim Ark...do this...
Read the lower case. Read the brief from The United States of America.
Now read the case with objective eyes and notice all the discussion of Natural Born Citizen.
Then read Fuller’s dissent.
Maybe your eyes will be opened about what was being decided in this case.
The United States of America appealed a lower court decision that Ark was a natural born citizen. They say it right in the brief.
Anyone from the Atlanta area going to to be at this hearing?
I never asserted that an unaccompanied minor was “waived through” customs, only that the idea that INS would take such a child and sever family custody and transfer it to a religious (Catholic) charity in CT is delusional. You have not provided a shred of contemporaneous documentary support for your speculation which you continue to state as fact.
Nor is there any documented evidence that Barry ever traveled unaccompanied, IIRC. Link please if you can prove it. “Dreams” is not evidence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.